Size of Ancient Warriors

Off Topic
101

True, an 8 or 12 pound sledge is just as likely to pop your skull. The one thing to consider though is that a 16 pounder is going to do more damage for a torso shot. A sledge is kinda slow for a combat weapon anyways, at least I think so.

MY guess would be the army ranger would win. Bruce lee is tough, but a clip of .223 bullets from the rangers m16 might be hard to dodge. But bruce lee fighting an army ranger is like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood in a fight. There both good guys, so they would kill the bad guys and um. Tag team the busty blonde in distress

102

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
True, an 8 or 12 pound sledge is just as likely to pop your skull. The one thing to consider though is that a 16 pounder is going to do more damage for a torso shot. A sledge is kinda slow for a combat weapon anyways, at least I think so.
[/quote]

The shot to the body probably wouldn’t be fatal itself, but it would certainly stun someone for that half second it would take to do the job.

103

[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:

Remember your average american soldier who is nowhere near as fit as wallace probably was is around the same height as him (6ft) and weilds gear that weighs anywhere from 80 to over 100 lbs, MUCH heavier than wallaces sword.

[/quote]
US soldiers aren’t wielding their gear, they’re wearing it. There’s a big difference, trust me.

Bigger swords were typically used on horseback as chopping instruments. They were too unwieldy for typical ground-based hand to hand combat, where speed and agility were at a premium.

And battles rarely took place the way they are portrayed in movies, i.e. a mass of 5,000 men hacking each other to bits in ten minutes. Mass casualties were pretty rare (not that they didn’t happen) for single day fighting before the advent of advanced weaponry (machine guns and high explosive ordnance). That’s why the siege was so popular and such an effective method. They could just wait out the enemy.

Before anyone starts quoting history, keep in mind that commonly-held history is always written by the victors, where high enemy casualty counts are usually overblown to make events seem more impressive.

DB

104

[quote]etaco wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
True, an 8 or 12 pound sledge is just as likely to pop your skull. The one thing to consider though is that a 16 pounder is going to do more damage for a torso shot. A sledge is kinda slow for a combat weapon anyways, at least I think so.

The shot to the body probably wouldn’t be fatal itself, but it would certainly stun someone for that half second it would take to do the job.[/quote]

I would have thought a high velocity round would be plenty to finish you off.

I read somewhere that it is a “shock” that can kill you, as there is shuch massive energy in a HV round, that even if it hit you somewhere non vital, that could finish you off.

105

[quote]etaco wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
True, an 8 or 12 pound sledge is just as likely to pop your skull. The one thing to consider though is that a 16 pounder is going to do more damage for a torso shot. A sledge is kinda slow for a combat weapon anyways, at least I think so.

The shot to the body probably wouldn’t be fatal itself, but it would certainly stun someone for that half second it would take to do the job.[/quote]

Actually, forget the last post in relation to this post, if that makes sense.

106

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Another thing you must remember about william wallace-

The taller you are, the more arm span you have. He had greater reach. Box a fella taller then you sometime. You will appreciate reach. Also, would you get up close and personal with someone more then a foot and a half taller then you?

The english longbow took about 100 pounds of pressure to pull back.

John Henry-wether or not the story is true, the song states that he was 6’6" and weighed 245,broad at the shoulders and narrow at the hip.

Sampson (if your a beleiver) killed a lion barehanded and pulled down a house. Granted, his strength came from God, but I am guessing he wasn’t 5’3" and 125#

Jesus was a carpenter. carpenter’s are sometime freaky strong.

What about blacksmiths? watch some western movies. Blacksmiths have this nasty habit of being barrel-chested huuuuuggggeeee armed ogres. Kinda odd.

James Arness! he was sherriff! ancient warrior he was! he dwarfed john wayne even.

Betcha gehngis kahn wasn’t a little feller[/quote]

Reach is easy to counter. Use a spear.

107

Even the toughest os us wouldn’t last well in comparison to a centurion.

We are weak and soft. They were strong and tough. Its intresting what was said about efficiency. Being Big muscled could almost confer that we live in safe enough times to allow for it.

Interesting.

108

for the record, spears are only effective when fighting in a phalanx or similar formation with a whole group of people. in one-on-one combat, or even two-on-two, it’s practically useless, as a spear is completely unable to strike within a certain distance, and that distance is VERY easy to close if you can dodge or parry the fist blow from the spear.

MUCH better reach weapons include: greatsword/no-dachi, glaive/naginata. Downside is, you don’t have a sheild, but personally, I’ve always found sheilds to get in my way more than they got in the way of my opponent’s weapon. …matter of personal preference.

…also more effective than the shield and spear style was the sword and shield style with dudes weilding 15’ pikes immediately behind them. This is what replaced the old roman technique, and for good reason. If someone is WHOLLY committed to defense, they’ll do a much better job. Also, if someone is WHOLLY committed to offense, he’ll kill far more people. plus, a 15’ pike can kill people farther off than say an 8’ spear in the hands of the dudes in the front. …more reach.

Glaives and Greatswords were usually weilded by skirmishers who waited until the the sheild wall was broken by a charge, then they would mop the floor with the charging dudes using sheilds in order to protect the dudes with the pikes, who would fall back to the reserve sheild wall, which would advance once the skirmishers halted the charge.

…this is typically how we do thinks in SCA battles, actually.

109

We had a programme talking about early war, and they said skirmishers/beserkers would likely of had post traumatic stress isorder.

Is this a possibility?

110

[quote]miniross wrote:
We had a programme talking about early war, and they said skirmishers/beserkers would likely of had post traumatic stress isorder.

Is this a possibility?
[/quote]

I would say definatley. I remember seeing documentaries following WW1 about soldiers who developed shell shock. One guy developed a facial tick after stabbing an enemy soldier in the face. Needless to say, you can’t go into a battle like that, where killing is face to face and personal, then come back completely fine.

111

[quote]miniross wrote:
We had a programme talking about early war, and they said skirmishers/beserkers would likely of had post traumatic stress isorder.

Is this a possibility?
[/quote]

well, yes and no.

Killing and violence in the dark ages through the middle ages was up close and personal, as well as nearly constant. People were desensitized to death, whereas over the past 200+ years, death has become something that is almost never seen.

Once warfare shifted to being primarily fought with rifles, people didn’t have to stab each other in the face as often, so I’m inclined to say that yeah sure, it’s possible that in classical warfare some people ended up with PTSD, but I think it’s probably fewer in number than we would imagine.

Of those more likely to GET PTSD, skirmishers probably had a tough go at it, since it was their job to stop a charge once it penetrated the outer shield wall, but imagine how hard it was on the dudes who were PART of the shield wall, but didn’t die in the charge.

As a greatsword fighter myself, all I can say is that sometimes everything becomes a blur… I often don’t even remember WHO it was I “killed” until afterwords when we all get drunk together and they say, “hey dude, you sure rang my bell today!”

Excellent question though… I wonder to what degree technology like the trebuchet and the ballista contributed to PTSD. Perhaps the ground shaking heavy cavalry was the stuff of nightmares for middle ages foot soldiers.

112

[quote]knewsom wrote:
miniross wrote:
We had a programme talking about early war, and they said skirmishers/beserkers would likely of had post traumatic stress isorder.

Is this a possibility?

well, yes and no.

Killing and violence in the dark ages through the middle ages was up close and personal, as well as nearly constant. People were desensitized to death, whereas over the past 200+ years, death has become something that is almost never seen.

Once warfare shifted to being primarily fought with rifles, people didn’t have to stab each other in the face as often, so I’m inclined to say that yeah sure, it’s possible that in classical warfare some people ended up with PTSD, but I think it’s probably fewer in number than we would imagine.

Of those more likely to GET PTSD, skirmishers probably had a tough go at it, since it was their job to stop a charge once it penetrated the outer shield wall, but imagine how hard it was on the dudes who were PART of the shield wall, but didn’t die in the charge.

As a greatsword fighter myself, all I can say is that sometimes everything becomes a blur… I often don’t even remember WHO it was I “killed” until afterwords when we all get drunk together and they say, “hey dude, you sure rang my bell today!”

Excellent question though… I wonder to what degree technology like the trebuchet and the ballista contributed to PTSD. Perhaps the ground shaking heavy cavalry was the stuff of nightmares for middle ages foot soldiers.[/quote]

I agree that they were far more desensitized to death than we were. The plague will do that to you…

However, I think that just as many probably had PTSD. Killing a man is killing a man. Warfare is traumatic no matter how you do it, and I believe that the numbers would probably be proportionate.

113

I wonder if video games/mass meida has desensitized modern soldiers enough to reduce the levels of PTSD, like in say, the Iraq war.

One of my best friends was over there in the Marines 1st Division, came back just fine, several confirmed combat kills, quite a few medals… he said that when you’re in that situation, your moral compass doesn’t even matter - you don’t think, you just do.

Afterwords, you hardly even need to deal with it because the truth of the matter is that it was either them, or you, or your friends… the decision is obvious - them. …and this is coming from a Buddhist.

114

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I wonder if video games/mass meida has desensitized modern soldiers enough to reduce the levels of PTSD, like in say, the Iraq war.

One of my best friends was over there in the Marines 1st Division, came back just fine, several confirmed combat kills, quite a few medals… he said that when you’re in that situation, your moral compass doesn’t even matter - you don’t think, you just do.

Afterwords, you hardly even need to deal with it because the truth of the matter is that it was either them, or you, or your friends… the decision is obvious - them. …and this is coming from a Buddhist.[/quote]

I have no doubt video games help reduce shock in certain situations during combat, especially as real as some of them are now. Even GTA-San Andreas was real enough when I first played to get my heart rate up during a police chase. However, I think your friend might be exaggerating a little if he says actually killing someone doesn’t effect him even after the situation is long over.

For instance: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/14037257.htm

The Washington Post did this article on the huge numbers of PTSD being diagnosed in Iraq post-Saddam reign. If exposure to violence eliminates the need for coping mechanisms, why does mental health become affected so easily?
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500948_2.html

[quote]“It’s pretty small beer, compared to the scope of the problem. You’re probably talking about epidemic levels of PTSD,” said Keith Humphreys, a psychiatrist and associate professor at Stanford Medical School who is helping train Iraqi doctors in modern practices. “The health system was pretty good, including mental health care. But in the last 25 years or so, they’ve virtually been kept in the dark. They weren’t allowed to go to conferences or even read the medical journals.”
[/quote]

In fact, http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=177101052
provided the following info

[quote]“Studies indicate that troops who serve in Iraq are suffering from [PTSD] and other problems brought on by their experiences on a scale not seen since Vietnam,” according to one report (Robinson, 2004). The National Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Survey (from 1986 to 1988) found that 15.2% of male and 8.5% of female Vietnam War veterans suffered from current PTSD (Schlenger et al., 1992).

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the visible manifestations of the mental health toll of U.S. combat operations include suicides and medical evacuations. Official Army statistics from March 19, 2003, through July 31, 2005, indicated that 6.4% of the 19,801 soldiers evacuated from Iraq and 7.2% of the 1,733 evacuated from Afghanistan had psychiatric problems. Among the 1,275 psychiatric disorder evacuations from Iraq, 596 were for depression, 109 for suicidal ideation and 91 for PTSD. There have been 53 suicides among service members fighting in Iraq and nine among those fighting in Afghanistan, as reported in a review of suicide data from 2003 to July 19, 2005 (Ireland, 2005).

Yet most suicides, according to veteran groups and media accounts, occur after troops return home. One highly publicized case was that of Marine reservist Jeffrey Lucey, deployed to Iraq for five months. When he returned home to Belchertown, Mass., he began drinking heavily and suffering from insomnia, night sweats, hallucinations and panic attacks. He received treatment at a Veterans Affairs facility, where he was described by one physician as having PTSD, depression with psychotic features, suicidal ideation and acute alcohol intoxication. One day, Lucey’s father came home to find his son had hung himself in the cellar. On Lucey’s bed were the dog tags of two unarmed Iraqi prisoners he said he had been forced to shoot (Srivastava, 2004). A recent Associated Press story (2005) reported that three men who had served with the Army’s 10th Special Forces in Iraq returned home and committed suicide shortly thereafter.

[/quote]

In other words, the person I would be most concerned about…is the guy who says none of it affected him much at all.

115

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I wonder if video games/mass meida has desensitized modern soldiers enough to reduce the levels of PTSD, like in say, the Iraq war.

One of my best friends was over there in the Marines 1st Division, came back just fine, several confirmed combat kills, quite a few medals… he said that when you’re in that situation, your moral compass doesn’t even matter - you don’t think, you just do.

Afterwords, you hardly even need to deal with it because the truth of the matter is that it was either them, or you, or your friends… the decision is obvious - them. …and this is coming from a Buddhist.[/quote]

Desensitized no. In a stressful combat situation a trained soldier reverts to his training. Fire, manuever, etc. An untrained soldier will usually panic. Then it’s over in the blink of an eye, even if the battle lasted the day. All military training is designed to take the human element out of the equation.

Modern warfare is more about machine vs. machine. Even in Iraq it’s more about explosives vs. armored vehicles. In these situations it is the skill and training of the squad leader that will save you.

All soldiers have some sort of regret or remorse about killing. Some more then others. Was it indiscriminate or for a just cause, maybe self defense. The concept of a just cause being the most important.It’s the support structure of the unit, family and friends that really determine how you deal with it as well as the acceptance of society of your actions.

116

One thing I would consider, Size probably had very little to do with what made a good warrior back then. I think almost any human is strong enough to gut someone with a sharp edged weapon. Or crush someones skull with a blunt one. Like others have mentioned, moving fast, being able to travel long distances on foot and do it efficiently were of a very high importance. and probably the biggest factor invoolved with who was the best soldiers or warriors was the mental aspect of it. Who was that crazy fuck who could tear through 20 enemies in a row and crave more. Thats the guy you want on your side, not some big pussie who is strong as hell but feints when he stubs his toe.

Skill, Agility, Killer Instinct, Endurance, This is what a warrior is made out of.

V

117

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I wonder if video games/mass meida has desensitized modern soldiers enough to reduce the levels of PTSD, like in say, the Iraq war.

One of my best friends was over there in the Marines 1st Division, came back just fine, several confirmed combat kills, quite a few medals… he said that when you’re in that situation, your moral compass doesn’t even matter - you don’t think, you just do.

Afterwords, you hardly even need to deal with it because the truth of the matter is that it was either them, or you, or your friends… the decision is obvious - them. …and this is coming from a Buddhist.[/quote]

Either he is trying to deny the psychological effects or he may have something catastrophic happen to him in the near future. Like a single car accident where the body is too badly burned to be identified, yet he is pronounced dead. He is assigned a new identity(ies) and is flown clandestinely to a remote country for further training before being deployed in various locales for the rest of his life as a covert hitman for some branch of the U.S. govt.

There are some people who are mostly unfazed by killing (borderline sociopaths). These are the ones that are selected for such assignments.

DB

118

well, this guy is a pretty logical dude, but I wouldn’t say he was COMPLETELY unaffected - he’s mellowed considerably, actually. He said that after his first firefight he had to do a lot of thinking about it all, and that he came to the conclusion that 1. he really had no choice in the matter. 2. he acted as humanely as possible given the circumstances. 3. he was glad that he had the opportunity and responsibility to represent the USA in a real combat situation instead of some redneck idiot from Texas who only wants to kill as many “ragheads” as possible.

I also remember he mentioned that the hardest part about ANY of it, was when they would put up a white flag, and then start shooting at you again once you’ve passed by.